If Earth’s residents ever decide to form a planetary homeowners’ association, the editorial team at AIF-Samara already has a candidate in mind for chairman. Professor Vladimir Aslanov of Samara University not only has a comprehensive development program ready—he’s also published over 100 papers in the world’s most cited scientific journals. And this February, his new book, “Prospective Mission Scenarios Within the Three-Body Problem,” hit the shelves. It sounds complex—but it’s really about familiar “municipal services”: waste removal, infrastructure maintenance, and even space elevators. We sat down with the scientist to learn more.
Three Bodies… or Four?
Dmitry Parkhomenko, samara.aif.ru: Vladimir Stepanovich, I tried to prepare for this conversation about the three-body problem—but honestly, I’m still lost.
Vladimir Aslanov: Don’t worry! Traditionally, we simplified things: launch a satellite around Earth, and only Earth’s gravity matters. But if you’re heading to the Moon, you can’t ignore Earth once you cross into lunar influence—that’s outdated thinking. Even in Earth orbit, the Moon’s pull affects your trajectory. That’s the essence of the three-body problem: Earth, Moon, and spacecraft.
But I know what you’re really wondering: What about the Sun? That’s the four-body problem—and that’s exactly what I’m working on now.
— So what are we actually trying to solve?
Our goal is practical: say, reach the Moon. To do that, we need precise mathematical models that engineers can use to build hardware that flies as accurately as possible.
— So we’re mapping a route?
Not just a road—we’re accounting for winds, rain, mountains, and valleys. In space, those “obstacles” are gravitational fields. The three-body problem is about navigating the dynamic interplay between Earth, Moon, and spacecraft.
A Space Elevator to Mars?
— What about Mars, its moons, and a spacecraft?
Consider this: Earth and Moon are 384,000 km apart. But Mars and its moon Phobos? Only 6,000 km. Our mission designs leverage Lagrange points—gravitational “sweet spots” where forces balance. Between Earth and Moon, that point lies 150,000 km out. Between Mars and Phobos? Just 3,500 km. Could we build a tether that long? Absolutely.
— Are you talking about a space elevator?
Exactly. Konstantin Tsiolkovsky first envisioned an “orbital tower.” But the modern concept of a space tether and elevator was pioneered in 1960 by Yuri Artsutanov, an engineer from Leningrad. His ideas inspired Arthur C. Clarke’s famous novel The Fountains of Paradise. Yet, nothing came of it—until now.
— Why not build one on Earth?
A terrestrial space elevator would need to stretch 110,000 km—weighing hundreds of thousands of tons—and be anchored on the equator. Imagine launching a 4-ton satellite: a rocket requires 800 tons of fuel. An elevator? Just lift it, release, and nudge—it flies. But we lack materials strong enough to withstand such stresses. It’s a dream for generations beyond ours.
— So why focus on Mars and Phobos?
Forget colonizing Mars directly. Phobos—a 25-km-wide, low-gravity rock—is the perfect staging ground. Landing and departing requires minimal energy.
We’ve calculated the minimum tether length needed for a Phobos-based elevator: just 10 km—versus 150,000 km for Earth. Even better: we can create a “hovering” elevator. Release a capsule at the right altitude, and it floats—pulled equally by Mars in one direction and Phobos in the other. That’s the three-body problem in action.
The applications are revolutionary:
- Return Phobos soil samples to collection points,
- Deploy probes to monitor Mars’ surface,
- Drop payloads onto Mars for free—no tether needed. Just release a small craft from the hovering platform, and it either orbits Mars or lands softly.
— So these technologies harness natural forces efficiently?
Precisely. All our research aims for a frugal, sustainable space economy—minimizing resource use and environmental harm to both Earth and space.
Orbital Debris: Threat or Legacy?
— Speaking of harm—what about space junk? Many think it doesn’t affect them.
Imagine two cars colliding at 100 km/h on a highway—debris everywhere, traffic halted. Now imagine 30,000 km/h. There are 27,000 tracked debris fragments in orbit today. Two events made it worse:
- 2007: China intentionally destroyed a satellite, creating 4,000+ large fragments,
- 2009: Russia’s Kosmos and America’s Iridium collided accidentally, adding 2,000 more.
Each collision triggers a chain reaction, rendering entire orbital zones unusable.
— What’s at stake?
Without satellites, we lose global connectivity. Today, three satellites let us stream a hockey game live from overseas. No orbit? No satellite internet, no GPS—just undersea cables. It’s a silent catastrophe.
— Can we clean it up?
Debris in low orbit stays for 1,500 years. Heavy rocket stages litter space. But here’s the twist: this “junk” is valuable. Launching 1 kg to orbit costs tens of thousands of dollars. Why not recycle it in space?
Current practice: move defunct satellites to a “graveyard orbit” 200 km above geostationary orbit (~36,000 km up). That’s humanity’s legacy—a treasure trove of aluminum and alloys for future generations. “Here, kids—build your factories from this!”
For active cleanup, we propose:
- Ion beam shepherding: A satellite blows ionized gas at debris (like a leaf blower), nudging it to graveyard orbit—powered by solar panels,
- Electrostatic repulsion: Charge both objects negatively—they push apart, contact-free.
On the ISS, they currently dodge debris by firing thrusters—costly and risky. Our idea? Deploy mini “hunter” satellites that intercept threats early and gently deflect them. Far cheaper—and safer.
Rescue Points and Golden Opportunities
— Your book is titled “Prospective Scenarios.” What could happen tomorrow?
Remember Apollo 13? After an oxygen tank exploded, survival seemed impossible—until engineers calculated a precise series of braking maneuvers along a figure-eight trajectory.
We propose something new: embed a “rescue point” mid-trajectory. If disaster strikes, the crew steers toward this pre-calculated zone—where a hovering elevator or rescue craft awaits. From there, they land safely in designated recovery areas. This is feasible today.
— If a magic fish granted unlimited funding for one project, what would you choose?
The rescue point. It’s not just engineering—it’s humanitarian.
Our conversation with Professor Aslanov lasted over an hour—only a fraction made it to print. For those fascinated by space exploration and bold ideas to help humanity leave Earth’s cradle, watch the full video interview on Rutube or VKontakte.
About the Expert:
Vladimir Stepanovich Aslanov— Doctor of Technical Sciences, Professor at the Department of Theoretical Mechanics, Samara University. His research spans classical mechanics, nonlinear dynamics, chaotic systems, spacecraft flight mechanics, gyrostat dynamics, tethered satellite systems, and spacecraft stability.
Source: samara.aif.ru